Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`Paper 10
`Entered: September 1, 2022
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`APPLE INC.,
`Petitioner,
`v.
`LOGANTREE, LP,
`Patent Owner.
`
`IPR2022-00040
`Patent 6,059,576 C1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Before PATRICK R. SCANLON, MITCHELL G. WEATHERLY, and
`JAMES A. WORTH, Administrative Patent Judges.
`SCANLON, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION
`Granting Institution of Inter Partes Review
`35 U.S.C. § 314
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`Paper 10
`Entered: September 1, 2022
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`APPLE INC.,
`Petitioner,
`v.
`LOGANTREE, LP,
`Patent Owner.
`
`IPR2022-00040
`Patent 6,059,576 C1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Before PATRICK R. SCANLON, MITCHELL G. WEATHERLY, and
`JAMES A. WORTH, Administrative Patent Judges.
`SCANLON, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION
`Granting Institution of Inter Partes Review
`35 U.S.C. § 314
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00040
`Patent 6,059,576 C1
`
`I.
`INTRODUCTION
`Apple Inc. (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition (Paper 3, “Pet.”) requesting
`an inter partes review of claims 1–5, 8–11, 20, 25, 30–32, 36, 39–42, 45–51,
`61–65, 144, and 147 of U.S. Patent No. 6,059,576 C1 (Ex. 1001, “the ’576
`patent”). LoganTree, LP (“Patent Owner”) did not file a Preliminary
`Response.
`We have authority to determine whether to institute an inter partes
`review. See 35 U.S.C. § 314 (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2020). To
`institute an inter partes review, we must determine that the information
`presented in the Petition shows “a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner
`would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the
`petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). For the reasons set forth below, we determine
`that the information presented in the Petition establishes a reasonable
`likelihood that Petitioner will prevail with respect to at least one challenged
`claim. Accordingly, we institute an inter partes review of claims 1–5, 8–11,
`20, 25, 30–32, 36, 39–42, 45–51, 61–65, 144, and 147 based on the grounds
`set forth in the Petition.
`
`II. BACKGROUND
`A. Real Parties in Interest
`Petitioner identifies itself as the real party in interest. Pet. 94. Patent
`Owner identifies itself as the real party in interest. Paper 8, 1.
`B. Related Matters
`The parties identify the following proceedings as related matters
`involving the ’576 patent: LoganTree LP v. Apple, Inc., Case No. 6:21-cv-
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00040
`Patent 6,059,576 C1
`00397 (W.D. Tex.);1 LoganTree LP v. LG Electronics, Inc., Case No. 4:21-
`cv-00332 (E.D. Tex.); LoganTree LP v. Huawei Technologies USA Inc.,
`Case No. 4:21-cv-00119 (E.D. Tex.); and LoganTree LP v. Fossil Group,
`Case No. 1:21-cv-00385 (D. Del.). Pet. 94 (citing Exs. 1031–1037);
`Paper 8, 2.
`In addition, Petitioner states that it has filed another petition for inter
`partes review of the ’576 patent, IPR2022-00037. Pet. 94–95. Petitioner
`states that two other inter partes review proceedings challenging the
`’576 patent (IPR2017-00256 and IPR2017-00258) terminated after the filing
`of a petition but before any decision on institution, and final written
`decisions were entered in two more inter partes review proceedings
`challenging the ’576 patent (IPR2018-00564 and IPR2018-00565). Id. at 95.
`Patent Owner also identifies these proceedings. Paper 8, 3.
`C. The ’576 Patent2
`The ’576 patent is titled “Training and Safety Device, System and
`Method to Aid in Proper Movement During Physical Activity” and relates to
`“the field of electronic training and safety devices used to monitor human
`physical activity.” Ex. 1001, code (54), 1:6–7. More specifically, the
`’576 patent discloses a method that detects, measures, records, and/or
`analyzes the time, date, and other data associated with movement of the
`
`
`1 This proceeding was transferred from the Western District of Texas to the
`Northern District of California on May 16, 2022, and is now styled
`LoganTree LP v. Apple, Inc., Case No. 5:22-cv-02892 (N.D. Cal.).
`Paper 6, 2.
`2 An ex parte reexamination certificate issued on March 17, 2015, with all
`claims either amended from their original form or newly added during
`reexamination. Ex. 1001, code (45) C1, cols. 1–12 C1.
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00040
`Patent 6,059,576 C1
`device and produces meaningful feedback regarding the measured
`movement. See id. at 1:8–11.
`The ’576 patent discloses that certain prior art devices recorded the
`number of times that a predetermined angle was exceeded but were not
`convenient to operate and served to report rather than analyze the
`information. See id. at 1:45–54. The ’576 patent discloses that it is also
`important to measure angular velocity to monitor and analyze improper
`movement. Id. at 1:55–67.
`The ’576 patent discloses an electronic device that tracks and
`monitors an individual’s motion through the use of a movement sensor
`capable of measuring data associated with the wearer’s movement. Id.
`at 2:10–13. The device of the ’576 patent also employs a user-
`programmable microprocessor, which receives, interprets, stores and
`responds to the movement data based on customizable operation parameters;
`a clock connected to the microprocessor; memory for storing the movement
`and analysis data; a power source; a port for downloading the data from the
`device to other computation or storage devices contained within the system;
`and various input and output components. Id. at 2:13–21.
`Figure 4 of the ’576 patent is a block diagram of the movement
`measuring device (id. at 3:11–12):
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00040
`Patent 6,059,576 C1
`
`
`
`Figure 4 depicts a block diagram of the components of the device.
`The self-contained device can be worn at various positions along the
`torso or appendages being monitored depending on the specific physical task
`being performed. Id. at 2:21–24. The device also monitors the speed of the
`movements made while the device is being worn. Id. at 2:24–25. When a
`pre-programmed event is recognized, the device records the time and date of
`the event while providing feedback to the wearer via visual, audible and/or
`tactile warnings. Id. at 2:25–29. Periodically, data from the device may be
`downloaded into an associated computer program, which analyzes the data.
`Id. at 2:29–31. The program can then format various reports to aid in
`recognizing and correcting trends in incorrect physical movement. Id.
`at 2:31–33.
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00040
`Patent 6,059,576 C1
`
`D. Challenged Claims
`As noted above, Petitioner challenges claims 1–5, 8–11, 20, 25,
`30–32, 36, 39–42, 45–51, 61–65, 144, and 147. Of these claims, claims 1
`and 20 are independent. Claim 1, as amended in the reexamination
`proceeding, is illustrative of the subject matter and reads as follows:
`1. A portable, self-contained device for monitoring movement
`of body parts during physical activity, said device
`comprising:
`a movement sensor capable of measuring data associated with
`unrestrained movement in any direction and generating
`signals indicative of said movement;
`a power source;
`a microprocessor connected to said movement sensor and to
`said power source, said microprocessor capable of receiving,
`interpreting, storing and responding to said movement data
`based on user-defined operational parameters, detecting a
`first user-defined event based on the movement data and at
`least one of the user-defined operational parameters
`regarding the movement data, and storing first event
`information related to the detected first user-defined event
`along with first time stamp information reflecting a time at
`which the movement data causing the first user-defined
`event occurred;
`at least one user input connected to said microprocessor for
`controlling the operation of said device;
`a real-time clock connected to said microprocessor;
`memory for storing said movement data; and
`an output indicator connected to said microprocessor for
`signaling the occurrence of user-defined events;
`wherein said movement sensor measures the angle and velocity
`of said movement.
`Ex. 1001, 1:25–50 C1 (emphasis omitted).
`
`6
`
`
`
`103(a)
`
`IPR2022-00040
`Patent 6,059,576 C1
`E. Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
`Petitioner contends that the challenged claims would have been
`unpatentable on the following grounds:3
`Claim(s) Challenged
`35 U.S.C. §
`1–5, 8–11, 20, 25, 30, 36, 39–42,
`103(a)
`45–47, 61–65, 144, 147
`31, 32
`
`Reference(s)/Basis
`Allum,4 Raymond,5
`Conlan6
`Allum, Raymond,
`Conlan, de Remer7
`Allum, Raymond,
`103(a)
`64, 65
`Conlan, Gaudet8
`Gesink,9 Raymond
`103(a)
`20, 25
`Pet. 1–2. Petitioner supports its challenge with the Declaration of
`Dr. Thomas W. Kenny (Ex. 1003).
`III. ANALYSIS
`A. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`Petitioner contends that a person having ordinary skill in the art
`would have had a Bachelor of Science degree in an academic
`discipline emphasizing the design of electrical, computer, or
`software technologies, in combination with training or at least
`one to two years of related work experience with capture and
`processing of data or information, including but not limited to
`physical activity monitoring technologies. Alternatively, the
`person could have also had a Master of Science degree in a
`
`
`3 The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, Pub. L. No. 112-29, 125 Stat. 284
`(2011) (“AIA”), amended 35 U.S.C. § 103. Because the ’576 patent has an
`effective filing date before the effective date of the applicable AIA
`amendments, we apply the pre-AIA version of 35 U.S.C. § 103.
`4 US 5,919,149, issued July 6, 1999 (Ex. 1008).
`5 US 5,778,882, issued July 14, 1998 (Ex. 1009).
`6 US 5,573,013, issued Nov. 12, 1996 (Ex. 1010).
`7 US 5,412,801, issued May 2, 1995 (Ex. 1013).
`8 US 6,018,705, issued Jan. 25, 2000 (Ex. 1012).
`9 US 5,803,740, issued Sept. 8, 1998 (Ex. 1014).
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00040
`Patent 6,059,576 C1
`relevant academic discipline with less than a year of related
`work experience in the same discipline.
`Pet. 2–3 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 22–23).
`Based on our review of the record before us, we determine that
`Petitioner’s stated level of ordinary skill in the art is reasonable because it
`appears consistent with the evidence of record, including the asserted prior
`art. Accordingly, for the purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s
`definition.
`
`B. Claim Construction
`In inter partes reviews, the Board interprets claim language using the
`district-court-type standard, as described in Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d
`1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). See 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) (2021). Under
`that standard, we generally give claim terms their ordinary and customary
`meaning, as would be understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art at
`the time of the invention, in light of the language of the claims, the
`specification, and the prosecution history. See Phillips, 415 F.3d at
`1313–14. Although extrinsic evidence, when available, may also be useful
`when construing claim terms under this standard, extrinsic evidence should
`be considered in the context of the intrinsic evidence. See id. at 1317–19.
`Petitioner proposes a claim construction for the term “movement
`sensor.” Pet. 5–6. On the present record, we do not discern a need to
`construe explicitly any claim language because doing so would have no
`effect on our analyses below of Petitioner’s asserted grounds and will not
`assist in resolving the present controversy between the parties. See Realtime
`Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is
`required to construe ‘only those terms that . . . are in controversy, and only
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00040
`Patent 6,059,576 C1
`to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’”) (quoting Vivid Techs.,
`Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)).
`The parties are hereby given notice that claim construction, in general,
`is an issue to be addressed at trial and claim constructions expressly or
`implicitly addressed in this Decision are preliminary in nature. Claim
`construction will be determined at the close of all the evidence and after any
`hearing. The parties are expected to assert all of their claim construction
`arguments and evidence in the Petition, Patent Owner’s Response,
`Petitioner’s Reply, Patent Owner’s Sur-reply, or otherwise during trial, as
`permitted by our rules.
`
`C. Board Discretion
`Petitioner argues that the Board should not exercise its discretion to
`deny institution under Sections 314(a) and 325(d). Pet. 87–94. In addition,
`Petitioner filed a paper ranking the two petitions it filed challenging the
`’576 patent and explaining the material differences between the petitions.
`Paper 2. Patent Owner did not file a Preliminary Response, and,
`accordingly, we do not address Petitioner’s arguments on these issues.
`D. Asserted Obviousness Based on Allum, Raymond, and Conlan
`Petitioner asserts that claims 1–5, 8–11, 20, 25, 30, 36, 39–42, 45–47,
`61–65, 144, and 147 of the ’576 patent are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
`§ 103(a) based on Allum, Raymond, and Conlan. Pet. 6–63. Petitioner
`relies on the declaration of Dr. Thomas W. Kenny. Ex. 1003. We first
`summarize the references and then address Petitioner’s contentions. We
`emphasize that the following determinations regarding the sufficiency of the
`Petition are preliminary in nature at this stage of the proceeding.
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00040
`Patent 6,059,576 C1
`
`1. Allum
`Allum relates to “providing non-invasive testing of the postural sway
`of a human subject,” and more particularly to the “direct measurement of
`body position using displacement or motion transducers or other sensing
`devices attached to the body.” Ex. 1008, 1:11–16. We reproduce Figure 1
`below.
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00040
`Patent 6,059,576 C1
`Figure 1 is a block diagram of an angular position and velocity based body
`sway diagnosis and rehabilitation system. Id. at 6:29–31. The system
`includes body sway sensors 12 that are attached to a subject and provide
`body sway signals to system processor 14, which derives body sway angle
`and angular velocity from the signals. Id. at 6:67–7:3. The system further
`includes memory 16, operator’s display unit 18, and operator’s input
`device 22. Id. at 7:8–13. Visual, auditory, tactile, and electro-vestibular
`feedback systems 24, 26, 28, 30 provide feedback on body sway angle and
`angular velocity information. Id. at 7:49–61.
`Body sway sensors 12 can be attached to the chest of the subject to
`register the roll, or side-to-side, and pitch, or forward and backward, motion
`of the subject’s upper body. Id. at 8:29–32. A third sensor may be used to
`capture the yaw or turning motion of the subject. Id. at 8:48–51.
`Allum discloses providing a warning if the subject’s angular sway has
`approached within a certain percentage of the angular cone of stability. Id.
`at 14:7–11. The “cone of stability” is defined as “the maximum leaning
`position of the upper body, i.e[.], the trunk, that a subject can achieve
`standing for two seconds, without falling, while attempting to keep his body
`as straight as possible.” Id. at 11:2–6.
`2. Raymond
`Raymond discloses health tracking system 100 having central
`database 102 connected to health trackers 104. Ex. 1009, 4:62–64. Each
`health tracker 104 includes multi-parametric physiological monitor 108 and
`data logger 106. Id. at 4:65–67. Monitor 108 includes a variety of sensors
`that detect a parameter and output signals to hardware 144. Id. at 6:19–26.
`The sensors include accelerometer 134 for detecting motion and inclination
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00040
`Patent 6,059,576 C1
`of the patient’s body. Id. at 6:41–42. Monitor 108 also includes
`batteries 129. Id. at 6:15–18.
`
`3. Conlan
`Conlan relates to an apparatus and methods for monitoring activity of
`the human body, and more particularly, methods by which the occurrence
`and length of certain types of body movements (which form activity
`phenomenon) can be selectively observed and quantified. Ex. 1007, 1:7–12.
`Conlan describes a problem with prior art devices, i.e., that saturation of
`memory occurred when the volume of data being monitored exceeded
`capacity, and states that this problem was aggravated because prior activity
`monitors were not selectively configurable to collect data only for a
`particular activity. Id. at 1:60–67.
`Conlan discloses an activity monitor worn on the skin and preferably
`on a user’s non-dominant wrist. Id. at 2:44–55. In a preferred embodiment,
`activity monitor 10 includes a pair of user-input pushbuttons 22, 23. Id.
`at 6:39–40. The user can depress one of the pushbuttons upon the
`occurrence of dizziness or pain so that the occurrence is recorded in the
`internal memory of the monitor. Id. at 6:43–46.
`4. Independent Claim 1
`a) “A portable, self-contained device for monitoring movement of body
`parts during physical activity, said device comprising:”
`Petitioner contends that Allum discloses a portable, self-contained
`device that is attached to a subject’s body and includes sensors that provide
`body sway signals indicative of the subject’s body movement. Pet. 24–25
`(citing Ex. 1008, code (57), 6:67–7:7, 8:8–12, 16:17–19, Fig. 2; Ex. 1003
`¶ 110). At this stage of the proceeding, and without determining whether the
`preamble is limiting, we are persuaded that Petitioner has made an adequate
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00040
`Patent 6,059,576 C1
`showing that Allum discloses a portable, self-contained device for
`monitoring movement of body parts during physical activity.
`b) “a movement sensor capable of measuring data associated with
`unrestrained movement in any direction and generating signals
`indicative of said movement”
`Petitioner asserts that Allum discloses a movement sensor in the form
`of various body sway sensors, including angular velocity transducers, that
`measure the body sway angle and body sway angular velocity of the subject.
`Pet. 25 (citing Ex. 1008, 6:8–11, 7:3–7, 8: 66–9:1). Petitioner further asserts
`that Allum’s sensors “include (i) a first sensor to measure ‘side-to-side’ or
`‘roll’ motion about a first axis, (ii) a second sensor to measure ‘backward
`and forward’ or ‘pitch’ motion about a second axis, and (iii) a third sensor to
`measure ‘turning’ or ‘yaw’ motion about a third axis” that are capable of
`measuring data associated with unrestrained movement along three
`orthogonal axes (i.e., in any direction). Id. at 25–26 (citing Ex. 1008,
`4:40–45, 6:8–11, 8:27–39, 8:48–51; Ex. 1003 ¶ 111).
`We are persuaded on this record that Petitioner has made an adequate
`showing that Allum discloses the claimed movement sensor. In particular,
`Allum discloses that its body sway sensors “provide body sway signals
`indicative of . . . upper body motion of a subject to the system processor”
`(Ex. 1008, 7:5–7) and “do not interfere with subject movement” (id.
`at 4:40–42).
`
`c) “a power source”
`Petitioner does not assert that Allum expressly discloses a power
`source, but contends that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill
`in the art Allum’s measuring device would have included a power source.
`Pet. 16, 26 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 68, 112). Alternatively, Petitioner argues that
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00040
`Patent 6,059,576 C1
`Raymond discloses using small, light batteries to power its monitoring
`system and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to
`incorporate Raymond’s power supply into Allum’s measuring device
`because the modification “would have merely involved combining prior art
`elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.” Id.
`at 15–16, 26–27 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 67; Ex. 1009, 5:7–11, 6:15–18, 9:38–46,
`Fig. 2). More specifically, Petitioner argues that one of ordinary skill in the
`art would have made the proposed modification “to include a power supply
`to Allum’s measuring device and support unobtrusive, low-power
`monitoring operation modes in Allum.” Id. at 16 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 68;
`Ex. 1009, 5:7–11, 6:15–18, 9:38–46). According to Petitioner,
`“[i]ncorporating Raymond’s batteries in Allum would have been predictable
`and foreseeable because electronic components need power to operate, and
`Allum’s monitoring systems would have benefitted from low-power
`operation modes to provide ‘power saving strategies [that] are a key element
`to allowing the physiological monitor[ing].’” Id. (quoting Ex. 1009,
`9:38–46) (second and third alterations in original).
`At this stage of the proceeding, we are persuaded that Petitioner’s
`rationale and evidence are sufficient to show that a person of ordinary skill
`in the art would have modified Allum to include batteries as taught by
`Raymond. Furthermore, we are persuaded on this record by Petitioner’s
`contention that these batteries are a power source.
`d) “a microprocessor connected to said movement sensor and to said
`power source”
`Petitioner asserts that Allum discloses a microprocessor-based system
`processor that is connected to and receives signals from the sensors.
`Pet. 27–28 (citing Ex. 1008, 4:18–23, 6:65–8:47, 16:17–19; Ex. 1003 ¶ 113).
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00040
`Patent 6,059,576 C1
`Petitioner also asserts that, because Raymond discloses that its batteries are
`connected to CPUs, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in
`the art that the batteries in the combination of Allum and Raymond would be
`connected to Allum’s microprocessor. Id. at 28–29 (citing Ex. 1009,
`9:38–46; Ex. 1003 ¶ 114).
`On this record, we are persuaded that Petitioner has made an adequate
`showing. Allum discloses system processor 14 that receives signals from
`body sway sensors 12 and is “implemented as a conventional
`microprocessor based computer system.” Ex. 1008, 6:67–7:2, 7:8–9. Also,
`Allum’s Figure 1 labels system processor 14 “μC,” which suggests a
`microcontroller or microprocessor and depicts a connection between system
`processor 14 and sensors 12. We also agree with Petitioner that, in the
`combination of Allum and Raymond, one of ordinary skill in the art would
`have understood that the batteries would be connected to the microprocessor.
`e) “said microprocessor capable of receiving, interpreting, storing and
`responding to said movement data based on user-defined operational
`parameters”
`Petitioner asserts that, in teaching “that the ‘system processor is
`programmed to transform the angular position and velocity information
`provided by the sensors into useful information formats,’” Allum discloses
`that the processor receives and interprets movement data. Pet. 29 (citing
`Ex. 1008, code (57), 4:18–23, 7:21–25). Petitioner also asserts that Allum’s
`processor uses the sensor data to determine whether to issue a warning
`signal when the user approaches his or her “cone of stability,” which
`Petitioner contends is a user-defined operational parameter. Id. (citing
`Ex. 1008, 13:12–32, 13:52–62, 14:47–49, 15:20–31; Ex. 1003 ¶ 115).
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00040
`Patent 6,059,576 C1
`Petitioner next argues that the processor receives and stores
`movement data because Allum discloses that “the ‘information provided by
`the wearable body sway sensors may be continuously provided to a system
`processor attached to the subject and stored therein for future analysis.’” Id.
`(quoting Ex. 1008, 6:14–17; citing id. at 4:18–19, 9:9–15).
`Last, Petitioner argues that “Allum’s system processor 14 responds to
`the movement data signals from the sensors by ‘provid[ing] the body sway
`angle and angular velocity feedback signals to a feedback system’ that
`generates ‘visual,’ ‘auditory,’ and ‘tactile’ feedback.” Id. at 30 (citing
`Ex. 1008, 8:8–12, 7:56–61).
`We have reviewed these aspects of Petitioner’s contentions and
`determine that the Petition makes a sufficient showing, at this stage of the
`proceeding, that Allum discloses this limitation.
`f)
` “detecting a first user-defined event based on the movement data and at
`least one of the user-defined operational parameters regarding the
`movement data”
`Petitioner argues that Allum discloses detecting a “fall event,” which
`Petitioner contends is when the subject’s body sway approaches or exceeds
`the limits of safety. Pet. 30 (citing Ex. 1008, 14:7–11). According to
`Petitioner,
`[w]hether a subject is about to fall is determined by comparing
`the body sway data (“movement data”) from the sensors to the
`subject’s “cone of stability” and detecting when “the subject’s
`angular sway has approached within a certain percentage of the
`angular cone of stability” (“at least one of the user-defined
`operational parameters”).
`Id. (quoting Ex. 1008, 14:7–11; citing id. at 13:16–28, 15:43–50). Petitioner
`asserts that a fall event is a user-defined event because the user defines the
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00040
`Patent 6,059,576 C1
`cone of stability and the proximity to the cone of stability threshold. Id.
`at 31 (citing Ex. 1008, 13:16–28, 15:20–31).
`At this stage of the proceeding, we are persuaded by Petitioner’s
`contention that Allum discloses detecting a user-defined event based on
`movement data (i.e., the body sway data) and user-defined operational
`parameters (i.e., the cone of stability and the proximity threshold).
`g) “storing first event information related to the detected first user-defined
`event along with first time stamp information reflecting a time at which
`the movement data causing the first user-defined event occurred”
`Petitioner asserts that Allum discloses logging fall warnings for later
`retrieval and “system processor 14 ‘save[s] in the processor system
`memory’ the ‘circumstances’ of the fall warning, including the ‘time of day’
`(‘along with first time stamp information’).” Pet. 32–33 (citing Ex. 1008,
`14:47–52, 15:48–53).
`We have reviewed these aspects of Petitioner’s contentions, and
`determine that the Petition makes a sufficient showing, at this stage of the
`proceeding, that Allum discloses this limitation.
`h) “at least one user input connected to said microprocessor for
`controlling the operation of said device”
`For this limitation, Petitioner points to Conlan’s disclosure of user-
`input pushbutton switches 22, 23 as being connected to a microprocessor.
`Pet. 33 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 121; Ex. 1010, code (57), 6:38–40). Petitioner
`argues that “switches 22, 23 ‘allow the subject to indicate the occurrence of
`a particular event’ such as ‘dizziness,’ and, when depressed, the switches 22,
`23 ‘cause that occurrence to be recorded in the internal memory of the
`monitor.’” Id. at 34 (citing Ex. 1010, 6:38–46, Fig. 6; Ex. 1003 ¶ 122).
`Petitioner asserts that switches 22, 23 are user inputs that control operation
`
`17
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00040
`Patent 6,059,576 C1
`of the measuring device by causing data for a user-specified event (e.g.,
`dizziness) to be recorded. Id. at 35 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 123).
`Petitioner argues that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary
`skill in the art to modify the device of the Allum-Raymond combination “to
`include Conlan’s buttons to enable the device to gather data (e.g., subject’s
`balance or movement) as it relates to a particular event specified by the user
`input buttons.” Id. at 21–22 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 79). Petitioner also
`articulates reasons, supported with the testimony of Dr. Kenny, to combine
`the relied-upon aspects of the references with a foreseeable chance of
`success. Id. at 22–24 (citing Ex. 1008, 7:8–10, 16:17–19; Ex. 1010,
`1:65–2:2, 4:5–57, 5:64–6:67, 9:1–15, 10:6–65, 11:58–62, Fig. 2; Ex. 1003
`¶¶ 79–84). At this stage of the proceeding, we are persuaded that
`Petitioner’s rationale and evidence are sufficient to show that a person of
`ordinary skill in the art would have combined Conlan with Allum and
`Raymond in the manner proposed.
`Furthermore, we are persuaded on this record that Petitioner has made
`an adequate showing that the combination of Allum, Raymond, and Conlan
`discloses the claimed user input.
`i) “a real-time clock connected to said microprocessor”
`Petitioner first contends that one of ordinary skill in the art “would
`have understood that Allum’s device includes a real-time clock
`. . . connected to the microprocessor at least because Allum’s device records
`the ‘time of day’ when a fall warning is issued and the recorded data is used
`to produce a ‘time history of the subject’s angular sway deviations.’”
`Pet. 35–36 (citing Ex. 1008, 14:47–54, 10:10–13; Ex. 1003 ¶ 124).
`Alternatively, Petitioner argues that it would have been obvious to include a
`real-time clock as taught by Raymond. Id. at 36 (citing Ex. 1009, 9:65–67,
`
`18
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00040
`Patent 6,059,576 C1
`10:1–36, Fig. 4); see also id. at 17 (asserting it would have been obvious to
`incorporate Raymond’s real-time clock into Allum’s measuring device).
`At this stage of the proceeding, we are persuaded by Petitioner’s
`contention, which is supported by the uncontroverted testimony of
`Dr. Kenny (see Ex. 1003 ¶ 124), that one of ordinary skill in the art would
`have understood Allum to include a real-time clock.
`j)
` “memory for storing said movement data”
`For this limitation, Petitioner asserts that Allum’s memory 16 stores
`data generated by the system processor. Pet. 37–38 (citing Ex. 1008,
`6:14–17, 7:8–20, 10:54–61, 14:47–54, 15:60–16:2, Fig. 1; Ex. 1003 ¶ 128).
`On the current record, we are persuaded that Petitioner has made an
`adequate showing that Allum discloses a memory that stores movement data.
`k) “an output indicator connected to said microprocessor for signaling the
`occurrence of user-defined events”
`Petitioner argues that “Allum’s device includes ‘[v]isual 24,
`auditory 26, tactile 28, and electro-vestibular 30 feedback systems’ (‘output
`indicator’) that are ‘also attached to the subject’s body’ and connected to
`the microprocessor 14.” Pet. 38 (citing Ex. 1008, 7:56–61, 8:8–12, Fig. 1)
`(alteration in original). Petitioner argues further that when Allum’s device
`detects that a subject is about to fall, fall warnings are issued through the
`feedback system. Id. at 38–39 (citing Ex. 1008, 14:7–17, 15:50–52).
`We have reviewed these aspects of Petitioner’s contentions and
`determine that the Petition makes a sufficient showing, at this stage of the
`proceeding, that the combination of Ono and Hutchings discloses this
`limitation.
`
`19
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00040
`Patent 6,059,576 C1
`l) “wherein said movement sensor measures the angle and velocity of said
`movement”
`Petitioner contends that Allum’s sensors 12 measure body sway angle
`and body sway angular velocity. Pet. 40 (citing Ex. 1008, 6:8–11, 8:66–9:1;
`Ex. 1003 ¶ 130).
`We have reviewed these aspects of Petitioner’s contentions and
`determine that the Petition makes a sufficient showing, at this stage of the
`proceeding, that the combination of Ono and Hutchings discloses this
`limitation.
`
`m) Conclusion
`For the above reasons, we determine, based on the current record, that
`the Petition shows a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in
`demonstrating that claim 1 is unpatentable over Allum, Raymond, and
`Conlan.
`
`5. Independent Claim 20
`Independent claim 20 recites a method to monitor physical movement
`of a body part having similar limitations as the device claim of claim 1.
`Compare Ex. 1001, 1:25–50 C1, with id. at 2:23–42 C1. For its analysis of
`claim 20, Petitioner primarily refers back to its analysis of claim 1.
`Pet. 47–49.
`Accordingly, at this stage of the proceeding, we determine that the
`Petition shows a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in
`demonstrating that claim 20 is unpatentable over Allum, Raymond, and
`Conlan for the reasons discussed above in connection with claim 1.
`
`20
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00040
`Patent 6,059,576 C1
`6. Dependent Claims 2–5, 8–11, 25, 30, 36, 39–42,
`45–47, 61–65, 144, and 147
`Claims 2–5, 8–11, 30, 36, 39–42, 45–47, 61–65, 144, and 147 depend
`from claim 1, and claim 25 depends from claim 20. Petitioner provides
`reasonable and detailed explanations, supported by the testimony of
`Dr. Kenny, indicating where in the references the limitations of claims 2–5,
`8–11, 25, 30, 36, 39–42, 45–47, 61–65, 144, and 147 are disclosed.
`Pet. 41–47, 49–63.
`Based on our review of the Petition, we determine that the information
`presented in the Petition establishes that there is a reasonable likelihood that
`Petitioner would prevail in its assertion that claims 1–5, 8–11, 20, 25, 30, 36,
`39–42, 45–47, 61–65, 144, and 147 are unpatentable over Allum, Raymond,
`and Conlan.
`
`E. Remaining Grounds
`Petitioner presents two more grounds that build on the combination of
`Allum, Raymond, and Conlan and a fourth ground based on Gesink and
`Raymond. Pet. 63–86. Because Petitioner has demonstrated that it is
`reasonably likely that at least one claim of the ’576 patent is unpatentable,
`we institute on all grounds and all claims raised in the Petition. See SAS
`Inst., Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348, 1354, 1359–60 (2018); 37 C.
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
